How to Answer the Census.
in [Physics]
|
From: knews4u2chew on 23 Mar 2010 15:38 On Mar 23, 11:52 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Innews:7a037867-e7c7-4bf0-bd4c-bc0f8bce7166(a)k4g2000prh.googlegroups.com, > > > > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Mar 23, 4:51 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> Innews:c3346ab9-c477-42e3-b2e6-c684270b3137(a)s20g2000prm.googlegroups.com, > > >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> On Mar 22, 12:05 pm, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> Innews:874b520f-e398-4b45-8cb3-37e7b4e695aa(a)u19g2000prh.googlegroups..com, > > >>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Mar 22, 4:48 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Innews:685f3be2-d96f-4cdd-8998-18e4b8f40240(a)t32g2000prg.googlegroups.com, > > >>>>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> Here is what I did. > >>>>>>> I took the "Census Privacy Notice" and wrote on it. > >>>>>>> "Yes. We will stand on our 5th Amendment "Right to > >>>>>>> privacy." 2 Human souls @ this abode. > > >>>>>>> Then I copied the Ten Questions here: > > >>>>>>>http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzo... > > >>>>>>> I typed at the top: > > >>>>>>> "I will answer your questions for the 2 human souls at this > >>>>>>> abode when > >>>>>>> you give me the answers to these questions." > > >>>>>>> 1. The Constitution authorizes government to count people > >>>>>>> but it does > >>>>>>> not authorize the taking of private information or even the > >>>>>>> names of > >>>>>>> individuals. From where does the Census Bureau derive > >>>>>>> authority to > >>>>>>> demand our private information? > > >>>>>> It says " in such Manner as they [Congress] shall by Law > >>>>>> direct." > > >>>>> What part of "enumerate" don't you understand? > > >>>> I understand the whole thing. > > >>>>> All it has purview to do is COUNT. > > >>>> Not true. Why do all of you KOOKS always think that something > >>>> is as you think it should be? > > >>> Funny how it's the "Kooks" that want to follow "the letter of > >>> the law." > > >> The "letter of the law" is, as has been affirmed by many court > >> rulings now, that the Census is completely Constitutional. > > > I NEVER said it was not. > > Then why do you keep quoting the Constitution? You're either doing > so to show that it's not being followed, or you're just being > ignorant. > > > You are lying and say I did. > > I didn't say that you did, and so you are lying to say that I did. > > > The "invasion of my privacy" is not allowed under the > > Constitution. > > You're lying about that too. No where in the Constitution is there > any general right to privacy. > > > "Enumerate" > > Very plain language. > > Which you do not understand. > > > 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9..... > > 4th and 5th Amendments.... > > ....say nothing about any right to privacy. But why do you quote > the Constitution? Do you think we should all adhere to it? > > > 2 human souls. > > Many of whom are very confused. 4th Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 5th Amendment. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Very plain language needs no "interpretation" by political appointees in Black Robes. Besides in common Law courts the People are judge, jury, and executioner. I am not a "commercial" entity. My souls is not under the Admiralty jurisdiction.
From: Benj on 23 Mar 2010 15:55 On Mar 21, 8:53 pm, Dan <dnada...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > 6. The Census Bureau claims it maintains privacy of personal > > information, Are there any circumstances under which law enforcement > > or spy agencies can access Census information? > > That is a good question! The answer should be obvious. It's exactly the SAME answer that goes with "let us hold your money for you until you need it" schemes. Once the information goes in, you have to assume that all privacy with respect to it is GONE except of course, if YOU try to see what is in your own files. The only way to keep information private is to make sure it never goes in in the first place. You are aware that there ARE ways to do "background checks" WITHOUT having to send in your personal information for probable storage and registration? Right? Here's a question for the 21st century: How long does it take for your personal information once it's typed into a computer to be stored in unknown places somewhere in the world? You people are sharp high-tech folks. You tell me. Nuff said.
From: Remy McSwain on 23 Mar 2010 15:56 In news:fbf83cf0-aa4c-4c62-86ab-b954b48cfb02(a)u19g2000prh.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 11:52 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> Innews:7a037867-e7c7-4bf0-bd4c-bc0f8bce7166(a)k4g2000prh.googlegroups.com, >> >> >> >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Mar 23, 4:51 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Innews:c3346ab9-c477-42e3-b2e6-c684270b3137(a)s20g2000prm.googlegroups.com, >> >>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mar 22, 12:05 pm, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Innews:874b520f-e398-4b45-8cb3-37e7b4e695aa(a)u19g2000prh.googlegroups.com, >> >>>>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Mar 22, 4:48 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Innews:685f3be2-d96f-4cdd-8998-18e4b8f40240(a)t32g2000prg.googlegroups.com, >> >>>>>>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Here is what I did. >>>>>>>>> I took the "Census Privacy Notice" and wrote on it. >>>>>>>>> "Yes. We will stand on our 5th Amendment "Right to >>>>>>>>> privacy." 2 Human souls @ this abode. >> >>>>>>>>> Then I copied the Ten Questions here: >> >>>>>>>>> http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzo... >> >>>>>>>>> I typed at the top: >> >>>>>>>>> "I will answer your questions for the 2 human souls at >>>>>>>>> this abode when >>>>>>>>> you give me the answers to these questions." >> >>>>>>>>> 1. The Constitution authorizes government to count people >>>>>>>>> but it does >>>>>>>>> not authorize the taking of private information or even >>>>>>>>> the names of >>>>>>>>> individuals. From where does the Census Bureau derive >>>>>>>>> authority to >>>>>>>>> demand our private information? >> >>>>>>>> It says " in such Manner as they [Congress] shall by Law >>>>>>>> direct." >> >>>>>>> What part of "enumerate" don't you understand? >> >>>>>> I understand the whole thing. >> >>>>>>> All it has purview to do is COUNT. >> >>>>>> Not true. Why do all of you KOOKS always think that >>>>>> something is as you think it should be? >> >>>>> Funny how it's the "Kooks" that want to follow "the letter of >>>>> the law." >> >>>> The "letter of the law" is, as has been affirmed by many court >>>> rulings now, that the Census is completely Constitutional. >> >>> I NEVER said it was not. >> >> Then why do you keep quoting the Constitution? You're either >> doing so to show that it's not being followed, or you're just >> being ignorant. Hmmmmm. >>> You are lying and say I did. >> >> I didn't say that you did, and so you are lying to say that I >> did. Hmmmmm. >>> The "invasion of my privacy" is not allowed under the >>> Constitution. >> >> You're lying about that too. No where in the Constitution is >> there any general right to privacy. Hmmmmmm. >>> "Enumerate" >>> Very plain language. >> >> Which you do not understand. >> >>> 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9..... >>> 4th and 5th Amendments.... >> >> ....say nothing about any right to privacy. But why do you quote >> the Constitution? Do you think we should all adhere to it? Cat got your tongue? >>> 2 human souls. >> >> Many of whom are very confused. > > 4th Amendment. > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, > papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, > shall > not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable > cause, > supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the > place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." So did you see the word "privacy" in there? Nope, not me! > 5th Amendment. > "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise > infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand > Jury, > except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the > Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; > nor > shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put > in > jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal > case > to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, > liberty, or > property, without due process of law; nor shall private property > be > taken for public use, without just compensation." So did you see the word "privacy" in there? Nope, not me! > Very plain language needs no "interpretation" by political > appointees > in Black Robes. Apparently, it does because KOOKs like you keep seeing the word privacy in there, and it isn't there. Moreover, why do you keep quoting the Constitution anyway? Do you think it should be followed? > Besides in common Law courts the People are judge, jury, and > executioner. So what? > I am not a "commercial" entity. You're certainly not Superman either. So what? > My souls is not under the Admiralty jurisdiction. Prove you have a soul.
From: Benj on 23 Mar 2010 16:04 On Mar 22, 3:25 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > Not true. Why do all of you KOOKS always think that something is as > > you think it should be? > > Funny how it's the "Kooks" that want to follow "the letter of the > law." Well, sure. Kooks are always so fanatical that they want a law to mean exactly what it says. Sensible people on the other hand know that laws and documents are "living things" that must be interpreted by a current administration in the light of present conditions and times. Without such a freedom to "adapt" how could government function smoothly? So if those in power say you are to provide certain information you have to provide it or pay the consequences. It's pretty simple.
From: Benj on 23 Mar 2010 16:04
On Mar 20, 5:25 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Many excellent points. If you and enough of > your neighbours can avoid the dreaded "count" > ya might succeed in getting a few light rail > stations moved to far away neighbourhoods. Then you > can drive to them when you want to use them but > they won't be in your neighbourhood when travel isn't > one or your immediate concerns. > > Sue... Sue, you've put your finger on EXACTLY what is wrong with "light rail" as a practical transportation answer. Hey I go to Cleveland all the time. What if there were a high speed train that I could take to Cleveland that say went 120 MPH cutting my travel time in half. And while we are dreaming, lets say a round trip was actually cheaper than driving or even the same price, say $50 or so. This sounds like something that would really be appealing, right? Even if we ignore the "freedom" issues, there are problems. For sure this rail line will end up in basement of the Terminal Tower in Cleveland. That's just fine if the purpose of my trip is to visit the Soldier's and Sailor's monument. But my mother's house is on the EAST SIDE of Cleveland! So how do I get there? Taxi? Well, there goes any savings both in money and time. A bus? They don't run out far enough. More light rail? Well it never ends does it. After all each person riding the train has their own personal destination to get to. It's all a problem neatly solved by the personal automobile. So that now leaves us with the lone workable idea of a train that hauls your CAR to Cleveland and back so you can go where your business is when you get there. But can one haul a train load of autos at 2x freeway speed to Cleveland and back for $50 each? I don't think so. So for any person with a brain, "light rail" is dead on arrival before the first tax dollar is collected. The "wonder" of the 19th century is now the laughingstock of the 21st. Some politicians just don't know it yet. This is the reason that in spite of the fact that lefty liberals all claim a right to lead the rest of humanity by virtue of their 'education" and "intelligence", nevertheless, they should never be allowed to be placed in charge of ANYTHING without proper supervision... |